Comments by "" (@boghopper5463) on "Majority of Canadians support COVID-19 vaccine passports for concerts, travel: Ipsos poll" video.

i would like to see an IPSOS study comparing likes and dislikes on youtb with real-world opinions.
22
@gpgara you are quite right in saying that mRNA treatments have been under investigation in the treatment of corona viruses for a long time. would you care to share with everyone how those original experiments turned out? how did the experimental subjects make out?
5
@thekeytothegate funny how they always leave out that little piece of information.
5
you are aware that there are no studies that would indicate that these new treatments will do anything to reduce transmission? this was not something even evaluated in the original trials.
5
there may very well come a time when we, the people who have chosen not to participate in this experimental, may need some means of recognizing and protecting ourselves from those who did.
4
@mattsimpson2142 you are obviously assuming that these jabs will do much more than just reduce symptoms. the original studies indicated about a 1% absolute risk reduction and that only was looking at a reduction in symptoms; nothing at all about transmission. you would have to jab 100 people to see 1 beneficial outcome. perhaps you could refer us to the new studies on which you are basing your opinions?
3
@dirtrider2323 might have done, but i doubted anyone ate it.
2
@matthewsimpson1268 well you obviously can’t refer to any studies that would back any of your statements. you could go and look up any of the original studies and see where they say anything. try looking at this paper out of waterloo which might assist you. Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials "A critical appraisal of phase III clinical trial data for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 and Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 shows that absolute risk reduction measures are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Yet, the manufacturers failed to report absolute risk reduction measures in publicly released documents. As well, the U.S FDA Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) did not follow FDA published guidelines for communicating risks and benefits to the public, and the committee failed Medicina 2021, 57, 199 7 of 8 to report absolute risk reduction measures in authorizing the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for emergency use. Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent."
2
@caryfrancis8030 thank you cary, bit you didn’t refer us to any of your missing studies.
2
@caryfrancis8030 10 times more deadly than influenza? apparently not. about half as deadly is what you should have said. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data “. . . based on the currently available data, one may project that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September 2020, far more than the approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower.” “In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%. “
2
@caryfrancis8030 here’s an updated version of those studies Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS‐CoV‐2 infection iswidely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5‐2.0 billion infections by February 2021 withsubstantial di!erences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries andlocations.
2
@caryfrancis8030 Polly has maybe read that study that shows that people under 70 are at half the risk from covid as from flu.
2
Fukushima Exposed sort of what the original mRNA experiments indicated.
1
never heard it called that before. works good.
1
@matthewsimpson1268 i think you misunderstood. i wasn’t asking about newspaper articles or opinions of ‘experts’ or other propaganda. i am asking after the science. i just assumed that since you apologists are all about following the science, that you would be able to refer to some of that science you are following.
1
@matthewsimpson1268 now try something really different for a change. look up that study, read it, and come back and tell us where prof. brown got it all wrong.
1
@matthewsimpson1268 yes. you, like so many other apologists following this new covid religion, can not present any references to any science and when presented with studies that might contradict the faith, are left with the only option of walking away. still wondering why this whole mess got so out of hand?
1
@matthewsimpson1268 1. “noun vac·cine | \ vak-ˈsēn , ˈvak-ˌsēn \ Collegiate Definition : a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease”
1
@matthewsimpson1268 2. Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS‐CoV‐2 infection iswidely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5‐2.0 billion infections by February 2021 withsubstantial di!erences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries andlocations.
1
@matthewsimpson1268 3. i have no studies on treatments. but i also have no studies that say these jabs are in any manner effective. we expect the results of those studies in 2023.
1
@matthewsimpson1268 4. as above. if the experimental trial results are not expected until 2023, it logically follows that the experiment is going on now. if the experiment is current, then by definition, the substance under study must be experimental.
1
Bruce Sanders sorry for butting in, but for some reason these covid religion zealots and their misinformation on a serious topic really bothers me.
1
@johnathandoehead5670 enough already. you can believe whatever you want to about masks, but the minute you start linking the efficacy of masks to any kind of science you cross the line into propaganda and field pies.
1
@johnathandoehead5670 ok. here’s one for free. why don’t you respond with a reference to a randomized control study that shows masks are effective. Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public "In total, 11 systematic reviews were included and 18 RCTs of 26 444 participants were found, 12 in the community and 6 in health care workers. Included studies had limitations and were deemed at high risk of bias. Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness, or any clinical respiratory infection."
1
@johnathandoehead5670 obviously, one of us is not willing, nor able to refer to any science at all. is the idea that if you don’t acknowledge any science then you can’t deny it’s existence?
1
@caryfrancis8030 you need to consider the fact those numbers have been vastly inflated with only about 6% having died without other health issues. this also ignores that inconvenient truth that year over year all causes deaths does not show any abnormal increases. you might actually try to read that report and see if you can learn something new.
1